MOSH Entry Examination and Making Safe Noise Team MOSH Leading Practice Adoption System - NOISE Team Initiatives Noise Team CHAMBER OF MINES OF SOUTH AFRICA Working together for a sustainable future since 1889 SACEPA Conference - Secunda - 25 January 2012

Introduction …all employees wear HPDs from bank to bank… (is this a common practice/motto)? …do we have OH challenges? YES …do we have a Noise problem relative to other OHS challenges? Is the Noise Team effectively contributing towards Zero Harm? NO Dust Industry meeting (31/05/2012) We do not want a dust leading practice that does not add any value like the HPD TAS Tool from Noise Leading the change to zero harm

Administrative Controls The Problem Nature of the Hazard Prolonged exposure to high levels of noise can result in permanent & irreversible damage to hearing Elimination – Substitution - -Isolation- Engineering Controls – Silencers- - Noise filters- Administrative Controls – Removal of persons from the hazard – - Reducing exposure times – Personal Protective Equipment – PPE - Last resort Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Global profile of NIHL NIHL has been recognized by World Health Organisation (WHO) Program for Prevention of Deafness and Hearing Impairment (PDH) NIHL prevalence of 120 Million Member states to setup National Programs on Noise WHO-PDH rates NIHL as the most prevalent irreversible industrial disease and most compensable occupational disease Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem State Intervention Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act 130/1993 (COID Act) Instruction - 168, 171 Simplification & fairness the compensation mechanism Punishes employers who allow the hearing ability of employees to deteriorate due to noise exposure at work places – Part of the National Program Baseline Audiogram test DMR’s Hearing Conservation Guidelines Hearing Conservation Programs in Mines Medical surveillance Programs Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Industry Response 1988 - Concern through the establishment of HCP User Guide No. 11 Voluntary Mining Occupational Health Advisory Committee (MOHAC) - Tripartite advisory body Adopted the 2003 Industry milestones Implemented the DMR/DME ‘s HCP Guidelines Elimination, Engineering Noise Control Administrative Control measures Personal Protection Medical surveillance Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Industry Response (cont.) HPD to be used as an interim protective measure while permanent engineering solutions are being investigated and developed – world wide applicable standard DMR approach World wide applicable standard/approach Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Prevalence of NIHL are derived primarily from compensation data Only once workers are compensable (10% PLH shift from the baseline assessment) are they documented as having NIHL Any degree of hearing loss that is not compensable is not reported in public data 70% of South African miners are exposed to noise levels exceeding the legislated Occupational Exposure Level (OEL) of 85 dBA Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Impact of the Hazard NIHL has cost the Industry R890 M – 1997 to 2007 R370 M – 2005 to 2009 Single biggest occupational disease in workforce Total NIHL claims in 2011 – R 44M Direct Cost – R37M Subsequent cost – R5M Days off - R 175K Very good progress Overwhelming Literature Data : Scarce , unreliable not standardized (different criteria for different countries etc) General absence of a ‘ helicopter view’ Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Problem Relative to OHS Challenges NB: Numbers are used to inform direction (frequencies viz. sound) Safety Challenges 121 lost lives Estimated total cost to the Industry = R 1.5 Bn (R 12M x 121 OHS Challenges Estimated total cost to the Industry =approx. 5 X 1.5Bn = R7.5bn Total NIHL claims = R 44M The Noise Problem viz Safety Challenges Noise induced hearing loss was recognised as a major problem in the mining industry in 1994 by the Leo Commission Safety Problem : Noise Problem = 33: 1 Dust Problems : Noise Problem = 170: 1 Approx. 2 Orders of Magnitude Leading the change to zero harm

Health - Occupational Diseases Same areas in the last few years SILICOSIS TB NIHL 12

CLINICAL CAUSES OF DEATH 2003 - 2010

The prevalence of pathology in the sample group is skewed, mainly due the fact that most assessments are performed for placement purposes of new recruits according to their physical and functional work capacity. New recruits mostly present without pathology. This may possibly be attributed to the fact that underlying pathology has not been diagnosed during their initial assessment. Diagnoses are captured by means of the ICD 10 coding system and grouped according to ICD10 groups. In case of using ICD 10 groups for viewing of the distribution of pathology; identification of pathology linked to lifestyle (e.g. hypertension, diabetes etc.) is not possible. Primary and secondary diagnoses captured on the database combined were used to report on the prevalence of pathology. It is however important to note that the presence of medical conditions and injuries cannot be disregarded when performing assessment of work fitness; the risk assessment tool must be sensitive enough to quantify the impact of pathology on actual work capacity. (Group representation expressed as a percentage of the total number of clients with pathology, not of the gross overall number of clients)

Leading the change to zero harm Implications Do we have a Noise Problem?? YES Zero Harm Commitment Do we have a Nose Problem RELATIVE to other OHS Challenges (Dust, TB, Fatigue and Safety)? NO NOTE: International standards for Safety = 34 deaths per year (more than 70% of the mark!!!!!) Noise = ??? Should the Noise Problem compete for space and time with other OHS challenges (Dust, TB and Safety)?? Should we have the have the same approach ?? Is there a need for a Paradigm shift in our approach? YES; WHY? Hearing Conservation Programs in Mines: where do currently focus? & where should we focus? Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm MOSH Noise Team Initiatives 1st Leading Practice - Noise Elimination (2008) Electric Drilling Machine World-wide accepted approach Not successful Right answer in a wrong paradigm – Galileo Is it worth revisiting? YES 2nd Leading Practice - PPE and Administrative Control (2010 -2011) Hearing Protection Device , Training ,Awareness and Selection Tool (HPD _ TAS) Only segments of the Leading Practice implemented Wrong answer in a right paradigm Is it worth revisiting? Prof. Cas Badenhorst ‘s MMPA presentation – “It is wrong to protect with PPE and then use medical surveillance to measure our success or failure . Occupational medicine and hygiene as disciplines are not the “silver bullet” Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm MOSH Noise Team Initiatives (cont.) Engineering Controls Suite of Leading Practices Need based approach Collaboration with suppliers Should they be the primary focus? HCP Leading Practice Elimination ,Isolation etc 1st Leading Practice - (Electric Drilling machines) Engineering Controls Ongoing - (Suite of Simple Leading Practices) Administrative Controls 2nd Leading Practice - (HPD_TAS Tool) Personal Protective Equip. (PPE) Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Direction of the Solution Occupation 1997 2007 Driller 111.4 105.5 Winch Operator 98.3 92.1 Loco Driver Shiftboss 104.9 89.7 Miner 103.2 90.4 Stoper 102.3 91.2 Team Leader 93.2 Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Direction of the Solution HCP Current Elimination ,Isolation etc 10%? Engineering Controls Administrative Controls Personal Protective Equip. (PPE) 70%? Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Direction of the Solution Duty of Care & ALARP Zone HCP Current Future Elimination ,Isolation etc 10%? 60% Engineering Controls 20 % Administrative Controls 10% Personal Protective Equip. (PPE) 70%? Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm The Direction of the Solution Consensus with the Industry on the need for paradigm shift Consensus on future management of the Noise Problem i.e. need a Paradigm shift (Strategy, ALARP - buy Quiet Policy) Aligning HCPs and Noise Improvement programs to the suggested approach Challenges of an employee profile of a Developed Country viz Developing Country – Understanding of quality of life Do we REALLY NEED a MOSH Noise Team? Viz other pressing OHS Challenges Implications ?? Manage variation viz IMPACT of variation? – employee profile Leading Practice Approach? Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm Conclusion Noise challenge is at a different phase (importance, maturity, tipping point, development, etc) than other MOSH teams and other OH challenges (e.g. MMPA conference) Need for a different approach Maybe leading practices need conducive paradigm Focus on Source Elimination - revisit the electric drilling machine concept In-depth review Not as a leading practice but part of Mining System Longer timelines (>10 yrs) Report on the new mines, expansion projects etc that are now designed for electric drills Not as compliance to the Mining Charter Continue with Engineering controls but not as a primary focus for the MOSH Noise Team Leading the change to zero harm

Leading the change to zero harm Questions Questions Leading the change to zero harm